Inorganic compounds, such as the propylene used to make masks, tend to degrade very slowly, especially when they're sealed in plastic bags. We've all seen the blue masks on the pavement and sidewalk, stubbornly retaining their integrity despite being stepped on and driven over.
Great work. Not just a failure to consider evidence. Also to do a back of the envelope cost-benefit analysis.
Their framing is so often "if it just saves one more life." Literally: "We refuse to even try to quantify the cost or expected benefit." Cost-benefit is their enemy.
I would be surprised to see a calculation that plausibly said:
We propose to dump $93 million of PPE. We estimate a X% improvement in mask performance, and from that extrapolate Y% reduction of Covid spread, and from that Z% reduction in hospitalization, and therefore ZZ $ savings.
We could not come up with ANY alternative expenditure of $93 million that would result in better health outcomes.
There are plenty of very poor nations, who are perfectly aware of these facts. They would have been delighted to take the slightly expired gear off the governments' hands.
it reminds me of my teenager that puts clean clothes in the laundry bc it's easier than folding and putting away in one's closet. Humans lazy and the government and bureaucrats exponentially more so.
If it were a private company that had spent millions on PPE, I suspect a cost-benefit analysis would be conducted before millions in supplies went into the incinerator. But if it's the government, it's not their money and they don't care. Maybe it's liability related...? They don't want to get involved in a lawsuit if someone contracts a virus while wearing an expired government supplied mask? It's all crazy. Thank you for looking into this madness!
Inorganic compounds, such as the propylene used to make masks, tend to degrade very slowly, especially when they're sealed in plastic bags. We've all seen the blue masks on the pavement and sidewalk, stubbornly retaining their integrity despite being stepped on and driven over.
Another outstanding article. Thank you David for doing the work no one else wants to do.
Great work. Not just a failure to consider evidence. Also to do a back of the envelope cost-benefit analysis.
Their framing is so often "if it just saves one more life." Literally: "We refuse to even try to quantify the cost or expected benefit." Cost-benefit is their enemy.
I would be surprised to see a calculation that plausibly said:
We propose to dump $93 million of PPE. We estimate a X% improvement in mask performance, and from that extrapolate Y% reduction of Covid spread, and from that Z% reduction in hospitalization, and therefore ZZ $ savings.
We could not come up with ANY alternative expenditure of $93 million that would result in better health outcomes.
Thank you. This is so disappointing ( but unfortunately, not surprising)..
There are plenty of very poor nations, who are perfectly aware of these facts. They would have been delighted to take the slightly expired gear off the governments' hands.
It's for this level of detailed reporting I subscribe. Thanks.
it reminds me of my teenager that puts clean clothes in the laundry bc it's easier than folding and putting away in one's closet. Humans lazy and the government and bureaucrats exponentially more so.
If it were a private company that had spent millions on PPE, I suspect a cost-benefit analysis would be conducted before millions in supplies went into the incinerator. But if it's the government, it's not their money and they don't care. Maybe it's liability related...? They don't want to get involved in a lawsuit if someone contracts a virus while wearing an expired government supplied mask? It's all crazy. Thank you for looking into this madness!